user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
There is no comparison -- not even close.
Jimmy Carter was a deeply moral man. No comparison.
by mojo on Wed Jun 21, 06 2:04pm
[+]
Jimmy was a mediocre president, but George stinks like shit.
LOL! Do a little research. There is ample grounds to criticize him as one of the worst presidents.
Jimmy Carter on the economy:
Year Inflation Unemployment (2nd column)
1976 5.8 7.7
1977 6.5 7.1
1978 7.6 6.1
1979 11.3 5.9
1980 13.5 7.2
Oh, 79-80 stagflation. Stagnant growth and high inflation.
- Iran Hostage crisis - 444 days.
- The Kwangju Massacre (South Korea) of May 1980 - Carter (the human rights guy) looked the other way. Same with Indonesia.
- New Years Eve, 1977: President Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him "an island of stability" in the troubled Middle East. Carter chose to ignore that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to the Shah mounted, the Shah directed his secret police, SAVAK, to crack down on dissenters (IT IS CALLED TORTURE AND MURDER), fueling still more resentment. Carter knew all this and called the Shah a "wise" and valuable leader.
- Utterly ineffectual at getting his policies enacted despite a democratic congress.
Despite Carter's highly publicized "moral values", his administration supported many of the most barbaric and backward regimes around the world. Iran is just one example.
It would be interesting to see similar stats for the GWB regime.
Carter's an Angel
by Jyl on Wed Jun 21, 06 2:54pm
[+]
Inflation has been less than 4% (much less I think). Unemployment rate has been around 5%. In purely economic terms, the difference is obvious.
How many of the jobs in the US economy are REAL jobs and not just the newly created service industry jobs?
Carter was a weak President, granted, but he wasn't incompetent, ignorant of common-sense approaches to statecraft, and recalcitrant toward advisors who are only trying to impart upon him the experience and wisdom he hired them to display.
At least Carter always had good and peaceful intentions.
SON OF A BITCH! I meant to vote Bush.
I'm not a fan of the Bush economy, but a lot more people actually HAVE jobs than people did under Carter. They also can buy things with what they make because inflation is extremely low as are interest rates.
The prime rate hit 21.5 in December 1980, highest in history. That is BEFORE the bank loans you money. That is what they pay.
Misery index - It is the unemployment rate added to the inflation rate. During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate, Jimmy Carter, made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%.
Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high, had a right to even ask to be President. By 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%.
There you have it.
And is that all Carter's fault? If yes, how so?
(Aside from the fact that he's a Democrat)
FiddleFaddleOnLSD
"The prime rate hit 21.5 in 1980"
I never studied world economics but I don't know how much control J.C had on the prime rate. Britian's prime rate was 22% at the same time and Canada's was 22.75%
Just as I don't know how much influence Clinton had on the economy during his term. My gut feeling is he was riding it just as any other leader would have.
Well, lets see. Reagan got in and Thatcher got in. Economies improved after some pain and were stable for years. So, you can't rule out any negative effects of socialist leadership in Britain and Carters weak leadership in the US.
The Economist "slow growth, rising inflation, high oil prices and weak labour markets. In the 1970s this nasty combination haunted the global economy."
This was not a result of political parties or how they changed. Because they flip-flopped all over the world. People switched their governments (right to left and back again) hoping they could solve the problem.
Here's a better way to look at it. How much of The US's strong economy during the Clinton years do you contribute to the Democrats?
Re: Reagan -- Ask people who worked in the airline industry during the Reagan regime how many new jobs they got. Irony of ironies, the Republican congress managed to change the name of Washington National Airport to Reagan National Airport. If you knew anything about the airline industry, that would make you gag.
This is a man (Reagan) who said about homeless people in D.C., "Well, I looked in the Classifieds this morning and there are plenty of jobs. Why don't they just get one?"
But hey, to give him his due, at least he read the newspapers ... unlike the genius who is leading our country to ruin now.
by mojo on Thu Jun 22, 06 5:02am
[+]
How many Americans died or were wounded in foreign adventures during the Carter Administration? What was the budget deficit during Carter's years? What was the national debt? How hated was the U.S. by the rest of the world. And how much torture and murder did the Carter Administration authorize for Americans to engage in? How many of our freedoms were curtailed or eliminated during the Carter Administration? How much spying did the U.S. goverment engage in on it's own people during the Carter years? Which President said that the Constitution is: "just a goddamed piece of paper?"
Carter's "administrationsupported many of the most barbaric and backward regimes around the world." As opposed to working hard to turn the U.S. into one of the most barbaric and backward regimes in the world.
Bush is arguably the worst president in American history.
I never voted for Reagan (I have never voted for a Republican for president). I did vote for Clinton. Clinton was fiscally responsible and got important legislation enacted despite working with a Republican congress for most of his term. He was light years better as a president than Carter ever was.
"People switched their governments (right to left and back again) hoping they could solve the problem."
Like it or not, Reagan supported Fed Chairman Paul Volcker in imposing harsh interest rates in order to kill inflation. While this resulted in a a very bad recession it also killed inflation and laid the groundwork for a stable economy for years to come. Reagan was willing to take the heat to allow this happen. Clinton's policies of fiscal restraint enabled there to be more money available in the economy to invest (rather than the government borrowing larger and larger amounts). Thatcher imposed harsh controls on the UK economy including crippling pressure on the unions. This and a reduction in super high interest rates on the rich encouraged wealthy Brits to keep their money in the UK and invest it there. The UK's economy has been relatively stable ever since.
A leader of a country does not have full control of the economy by any stretch, however they do have input. The world has certainly had issues with energy prices, war, etc., similar to the 70s. More effective and responsible leadership has enabled the economies of these countries to continue to grow.
Carter projected an aura of incompetence and weakness. It is hard for people to feel confident about their country when their leader is perceived as weak, helpless, indecisive and incompetent. People agreed with Carter on the issues much more than they did with Reagan. However, Reagan inspired confidence. That was the big difference. You saw similar in the last election. Bush painted Kerry as indecisive and weak. We all know what happened.
FiddleFaddleOnLSD
"however they do have input" I fully agree. I was merely pointing out that you can't say Carter was a lousy president because of the high lending rates. He did try and tackle the problem as most world leaders did (left and right).
George W. Bush. No comparison. Bush is a stupid, vile, arrogant, and power mad little man.
Carter, who refused to play ball with the Washington "insiders," which rendered him politically impotent, may have seemed a bad president. However, what made him ineffective were the evil power mongers of the capitol, not his own nature.
Carter may have well been our very best president from the perspective of morality, and inherent goodness. The only rival to Carter for moral best president may be Woodrow Wilson, who was also idealistic and didn't get along with the power brokers of the wealthy.
THERE! Now I voted right.
I wonder how many of the people voting actually lived through Carter's disastrous presidency.
Did you live through Hitler's time in power? Is it necessary to form a judgement?
Caligula must have been a great guy. I didn't live in Rome when he was Caesar, so who am I to judge?
I can't help it if you believe all the humanitarian propaganda about Carter and let that influence your beliefs. Take that away and examine his record. I've given you the economic figures. Obviously the people voting in 1980 thought he was pathetic as well since he got ousted in a landslide.
It's more important to examine Bush's abysmal, criminally bad record as president when making the comparison. That's what is significant. No one is suggesting that Carter was a good president. Bush, however, is the worst president in American history.
I have to give Carter points for trying.
No comparison.
Voted : George W Bush
Carter: good man but ineffective.
Bush: total scumbag.
|
|
